SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
5/2-5/4 Red Sox vs. Athletics Series Thread
|
Post by jimed14 on May 5, 2014 7:21:13 GMT -5
Matt, JH hires financial people who determine the value of a player by a formula or whatever they call it, as he believes letting the market determine value is zonkers. I do not know what info they compute, and agree with JH's assessment of the market and his reluctance to chase guys over 30. But if you need a certain player, then you have to play the game and usually overpay. Unlike you, just have a higher estimation of Ellsbury's worth, particularly on the offense sie of the game, and there not are too many outfield prospects in the system. But I understand the reasoning about Bradley. Just believe IMHO that Ellsbury developed into an exceptional and hard to come by offensive force who can be a "game changer". Also, don't believe they would not be hindered by his contract or lose financial flexibility ( which they will not use). The Sox are a cash cow. ( NY York also made the splash because of TV) Pretty clear they had a figure for Ellsbury that was less than he probably would get in the market ( greater fool theory) and stuck to it. Don't know what his willingness was about staying with the Sox or whether he would have stuck with the Sox with something near what he expected from the market. Seems they are using the same approach with Lester, perhaps thinking he is at the 30 stage with many innings pitched and will regress. He probably will lose more velocity, but he seems to have adjusted to the velocity he has already lost, and is a horse. Don't see any replacement next year either, and Lackey and Peavy will be a year older. What prospects they may have take time to develop once they hit the big time. More than likely, they will let Lester walk. Yup, I am frustrated ,but in my sane moments, all two minutes of them, feel that once X-Man and Bradley hit their potential Sox will be better. I also assuming Sizemore will get better ( maybe shouldn't assume) Middlebrooks is the big question mark, at least for me. Don't know X-Man's defensive impact, and whether Koji will come close to repeating. They may have to scramble with the pen again. And yes, while he is holding his own, especially for his age, X-Man is not a real force in the lineup, no surprise for at least the first month or so. I am told that he heats up with the weather. Basically, they are in a transition and should become better. But if they had the fearsome threesome now, they would be running away with it. Maybe the "chemistry" went with them. What the hell do you think Ellsbury is going to be worth in 3-4-5 years? Are you going to put him on the bench if he's not replacement level while making $22 million a year? Cashman looks like a genius in the first few months of 4 too long contracts. The price is paid later. Cherington/Henry look like geniuses later when Bradley is a much better player than Ellsbury which WILL happen over the course of his contract.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 5, 2014 9:33:26 GMT -5
I completely understand the pessimism and sense of urgency in this thread. The Red Sox are already 2 games out of first in the division, and it is almost the middle of May.
|
|
|
Post by godot on May 5, 2014 11:00:35 GMT -5
I completely understand the pessimism and sense of urgency in this thread. The Red Sox are already 2 games out of first in the division, and it is almost the middle of May. LOL, good perspective, thanks
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 5, 2014 12:09:32 GMT -5
A lot can happen in these next few weeks to change our outlook. My feelings exactly. The Red Sox had a lot of games they should have won or were just unlucky. Regardless of how frustrating that is, it bodes well for the future. I'll test positive for this right now, as well. A lot of buzzard luck, some booted balls and even scorched by replay a couple times. Nothing a little 8-10 game winning streak can't fix.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 5, 2014 12:31:29 GMT -5
I completely understand the pessimism and sense of urgency in this thread. The Red Sox are already 2 games out of first in the division, and it is almost the middle of May. I think the pessimism is coming simply from the fact that the Red Sox are playing like crap and finding ways to lose games they should win. The division is quite weak this year. The Sox should be in front of the division instead of banging into a gazillion DPs, stranding runners in scoring position with less than two outs, and finding every which way to lose close home games. That's where the negativity is coming from. Doesn't mean the Sox can't go out and win themselves a bunch of games. My gut tells me the Sox will keep bouncing between the 3 and 1 game under .500 mark until they have a winning streak and finally blow past .500. But if the Sox are to get anywhere this year they need to start winning the close games and kicking butt at home. While I'd love to see the Sox repeat this year, I think a great consolation prize would be the Sox having a healthier long-term outlook and if the prospects keep percolating and Xander, Bradley, and some of the young guys can establish themselves, then the year is pretty successful if it's setting up big years ahead.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 5, 2014 13:04:52 GMT -5
Re: Consolation prizes
What RSChamps said... plus beating the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on May 5, 2014 21:35:05 GMT -5
Regardless, JBJ should be able to bunt better. God no. My only hope is that if he sucks at it enough Farrell will stop asking him to do. Well, let him strikeout then and have one out and a runner on second. Given Bradley's high propensity for strikeout or weak contact to date I would rather take my chances having him bunt the runner to third with one out (what 70-30%?) than stand pat given the Sox woeful performance to date moving runners along or scoring them. So many outs are made in today's game via strikeout as opposed to productive out and the Sox have been a primo example, that we need try something different. Regardless, Bradley should be expected to execute better from his timing of squaring up (pointed out by Remy) to angling the bat to effect direction upon contact.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 5, 2014 22:35:07 GMT -5
God no. My only hope is that if he sucks at it enough Farrell will stop asking him to do. Well, let him strikeout then and have one out and a runner on second. Given Bradley's high propensity for strikeout or weak contact to date I would rather take my chances having him bunt the runner to third with one out (what 70-30%?) than stand pat given the Sox woeful performance to date moving runners along or scoring them. So many outs are made in today's game via strikeout as opposed to productive out and the Sox have been a primo example, that we need try something different. Regardless, Bradley should be expected to execute better from his timing of squaring up (pointed out by Remy) to angling the bat to effect direction upon contact. We don't have to guess here. People have done the math for us. Run expectancy with: No outs, man on second: 1.170 One out, man on third: 0.989 If you sac bunt a runner from second to third, you just REDUCED your chances of scoring that inning. And of course, there's no guarantee that a sac bunt is even going to be successful. It's a terrible move. (source: www.tangotiger.net/re24.html)
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 5, 2014 23:39:26 GMT -5
Baseball teams have one fundamental resource during games, and it's their 27 outs. The good hitting, high OBP, deep pitching, and great defense? Those are just ways to exploit those resources by hoarding yours and using up theirs.
Fenway has a point. That increment of probability might seem trivial, except that there are 162 games. So that stuff adds up over the season. Do it often enough and you lose more games then your competitors. It really is that simple.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 5, 2014 23:46:52 GMT -5
On a more specific level, the point is that most events that score a runner from third also score a runner from second. At least enough that moving the runner over doesn't help you as much as giving up the out hurts you.
(actually, sac bunting a guy from first to second doesn't help either. So, uhh... maybe just stop sac bunting already.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,017
|
Post by ericmvan on May 5, 2014 23:53:37 GMT -5
Baseball teams have one fundamental resource during games, and it's their 27 outs. The good hitting, high OBP, deep pitching, and great defense? Those are just ways to exploit those resources by hoarding yours and using up theirs. Fenway has a point. That increment of probability might seem trivial, except that there are 162 games. So that stuff adds up over the season. Do it often enough and you lose more games then your competitors. It really is that simple www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-baseball-equivalent-of-hitting-on-16/
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 6, 2014 0:11:00 GMT -5
In no other sport is a game strategy repeatedly undertaken that has a measurably negative effect on that team’s chances of winning. I don't know about that. NFL teams punt on 4th-and-inches at midfield all the time. (On the larger point I agree of course)
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 6, 2014 3:30:09 GMT -5
While I do hate sac bunting... Run expectancy with: No outs, man on second: 1.170 One out, man on third: 0.989 If you sac bunt a runner from second to third, you just REDUCED your chances of scoring that inning. ...this is wrong. The RE for 1 out, man on 3rd is lower because your chances of scoring 2, 3 or more runs that inning have become much lower. Your chances of scoring at least (usually exactly) one run actually go up. Bottom of the 9th, tie game, no outs, man on second: 81.7% WE Bottom of the 9th, tie game, one out, man on third: 83.5% WE
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on May 6, 2014 6:33:18 GMT -5
Sac bunts are bad.
A pro ballplayer like JBJ should be able to at least square around before he makes a futile attempt, after the manager makes the mistake of calling for the sac bunt.
The manager's other mistake was showing no confidence in a top prospect. If you think that little of him 2 times in a row 30 games in , he should be in AAA.
But they still won 2 out of 3. Bring on the Reds and keep Hamilton off base.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 6, 2014 7:17:11 GMT -5
While I do hate sac bunting... Run expectancy with: No outs, man on second: 1.170 One out, man on third: 0.989 If you sac bunt a runner from second to third, you just REDUCED your chances of scoring that inning. ...this is wrong. The RE for 1 out, man on 3rd is lower because your chances of scoring 2, 3 or more runs that inning have become much lower. Your chances of scoring at least (usually exactly) one run actually go up. Bottom of the 9th, tie game, no outs, man on second: 81.7% WE Bottom of the 9th, tie game, one out, man on third: 83.5% WE That's a good point. Two things, however: 1. With regards to the failed JBJ sac bunt we're actually debating here, the Red Sox needed two runs to win the game. 2. A 1.7% increase in win expectancy... do we even trust WE to be accurate to within a couple of percentage points? It's a minuscule advantage that has to be weighed against the chances of a failed bunt attempt.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on May 6, 2014 9:01:25 GMT -5
Sac bunts are bad. A pro ballplayer like JBJ should be able to at least square around before he makes a futile attempt, after the manager makes the mistake of calling for the sac bunt. The manager's other mistake was showing no confidence in a top prospect. If you think that little of him 2 times in a row 30 games in , he should be in AAA. But they still won 2 out of 3. Bring on the Reds and keep Hamilton off base. Hamilton is day to day with a hand injury.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 6, 2014 9:37:46 GMT -5
God no. My only hope is that if he sucks at it enough Farrell will stop asking him to do. Well, let him strikeout then and have one out and a runner on second. Given Bradley's high propensity for strikeout or weak contact to date I would rather take my chances having him bunt the runner to third with one out (what 70-30%?) than stand pat given the Sox woeful performance to date moving runners along or scoring them. So many outs are made in today's game via strikeout as opposed to productive out and the Sox have been a primo example, that we need try something different. Regardless, Bradley should be expected to execute better from his timing of squaring up (pointed out by Remy) to angling the bat to effect direction upon contact. You really think it's difficult for Bradley to pull a ground ball (which he did)? Bunting there is really dumb unless it's someone like Jon Lester at the plate.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 6, 2014 9:47:34 GMT -5
While I do hate sac bunting... ...this is wrong. The RE for 1 out, man on 3rd is lower because your chances of scoring 2, 3 or more runs that inning have become much lower. Your chances of scoring at least (usually exactly) one run actually go up. Bottom of the 9th, tie game, no outs, man on second: 81.7% WE Bottom of the 9th, tie game, one out, man on third: 83.5% WE That's a good point. Two things, however: 1. With regards to the failed JBJ sac bunt we're actually debating here, the Red Sox needed two runs to win the game. 2. A 1.7% increase in win expectancy... do we even trust WE to be accurate to within a couple of percentage points? It's a minuscule advantage that has to be weighed against the chances of a failed bunt attempt. I wasn't disagreeing with your result, just with your explanation of how to get there. Win expectancy has an obvious problem in being based on average players, which you obviously don't always get. But if I were a member of the oh-so-tough Boston media, I wouldn't let that be a cop-out for managers in all cases. Let's add a data point, BTW: Bottom of the 9th, tie game, one out, man on second: 70.7% WE With this, we can calculate the success rate needed for the sac bunt to actually be good in this situation (surely the best possible for it): 0.835p + 0.707(1-p) = 0.817 (0.835 - 0.707)p = 0.817 - 0.707 p = 0.110 / 0.128 ~= .859 So you need to advance the base runner more than 86% of the time for the sac fly to be good even needing only one run. I doubt there are many players in MLB who have that high a success rate, and JBJ certainly isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 6, 2014 14:09:04 GMT -5
Baseball teams have one fundamental resource during games, and it's their 27 outs. The good hitting, high OBP, deep pitching, and great defense? Those are just ways to exploit those resources by hoarding yours and using up theirs. Fenway has a point. That increment of probability might seem trivial, except that there are 162 games. So that stuff adds up over the season. Do it often enough and you lose more games then your competitors. It really is that simple. Absolutely agree. These are precious. Should never be simply given up on low percentage/low success "strategy" and chalk it up to any sort of sound reason. Between the bunts and the hit and runs you'd think the Front Office would have a chat with Johnny.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 6, 2014 14:12:06 GMT -5
That's a good point. Two things, however: 1. With regards to the failed JBJ sac bunt we're actually debating here, the Red Sox needed two runs to win the game. 2. A 1.7% increase in win expectancy... do we even trust WE to be accurate to within a couple of percentage points? It's a minuscule advantage that has to be weighed against the chances of a failed bunt attempt. I wasn't disagreeing with your result, just with your explanation of how to get there. Win expectancy has an obvious problem in being based on average players, which you obviously don't always get. But if I were a member of the oh-so-tough Boston media, I wouldn't let that be a cop-out for managers in all cases. Let's add a data point, BTW: Bottom of the 9th, tie game, one out, man on second: 70.7% WE With this, we can calculate the success rate needed for the sac bunt to actually be good in this situation (surely the best possible for it): 0.835p + 0.707(1-p) = 0.817 (0.835 - 0.707)p = 0.817 - 0.707 p = 0.110 / 0.128 ~= .859 So you need to advance the base runner more than 86% of the time for the sac fly to be good even needing only one run. I doubt there are many players in MLB who have that high a success rate, and JBJ certainly isn't one of them. Then again, there's an assumption that the player at the plate can successfully lay down a bunt. JBJ has shown that this is not yet a confident/effective part of his skill set.
|
|
|